At a dead end

There was no official meeting between Trump and Putin in Vietnam, because they simply have nothing to talk about at it.

After meeting with Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the APEC summit in Da Nang, Vietnam, Donald Trump told reporters that he had received Putin's assurance of non-interference in the 2016 US presidential election. Trump added that it would be a mistake to focus on the topic of interference, as it hinders the improvement of Russian-American relations. Worse, the US president said, the focus on Russian interference in the US election makes it difficult for bilateral cooperation on North Korea, Syria and Ukraine.

There is no doubt that the US is interested in changing Russian policy on all these pain points. But Trump does not understand why Putin is pursuing such a policy. Until the President of the United States understands who Mr. Putin is, he will not be able to successfully cooperate with him. Relations between Moscow and Washington cannot be based on the personal affinity of the presidents - "chemistry", as Trump probably believes, they are built on core interests and commitment to certain values.

The United States professes a democratic political model, while Russia clings to authoritarianism - this key disagreement also determines the foreign policy of the two states, which have fallen back into an unprecedented cooling in bilateral relations. Moreover, Russia has adopted authoritarianism both in domestic politics and in the international arena.

In the early 1990s, the Russian elites were preoccupied with issues of national self-identification, and the post-Soviet countries fell out of their zone of interest. At that time, one often heard that Moscow did not care about the lives of its neighbors and that they looked like unwelcome poor relatives clinging to Russian resources. Russia was focused on internal problems, resolved with varying degrees of success. One of the strategic mistakes of Boris Yeltsin was that he did not weaken the KGB - he divided this Soviet monster into departments, but did not deprive him of power. This structure largely determines the current course of Russia, which is now aimed at the thirst for power dominance in its region.

During his first presidential term, Putin did not yet see himself as a messiah, he tried to solve specific problems and was a fairly effective leader. But towards the end of his second term, the President of Russia looked anachronistically, like Catherine II

Russia's intervention in Ukraine has become a stumbling block in relations between Moscow and the West, putting them in direct confrontation. And while there is no way out of this impasse, Putin has nothing to sit down at the negotiating table with world leaders - because there is nothing to talk about. I do not mean to say that there is no chance for negotiations as such - the USSR and the USA, ideological antagonists, cooperated quite effectively during the Second World War. And during the Cold War, they continued the dialogue. However, Soviet leaders showed a willingness to change approaches in order to achieve a result in the negotiations. In the same way, today's Kremlin will have to change its approaches - the ball is in its favor.

Western politicians are giving Putin a good piece of advice to push the Crimea issue to a separate dossier, but for now focus on resolving the crisis in eastern Ukraine. And this task looks solvable if there is political will.

The President of Russia has enough good advisers in his own environment, but one gets the impression that he has lost control of the situation, believing in his own myths. During his first presidential term, Putin did not yet see himself as a messiah, he tried to solve specific problems and was a fairly effective leader. But towards the end of his second term, the President of Russia looked anachronistically, like Catherine II. As a result, the country continues to lose chances for an innovative scenario, sliding from the promised stability into stagnation and stagnation.

Each presidential term we have seen a different Putin. At first, he promised security and stability - and achieved a lot. Then he tried to "make Russia great again"** - and led her into an isolation dead end. Can a “new Putin” appear in the fourth round of his reign with a renewed team of reformers who want to put an end to the confrontation with the West? Yes, it probably can. But personally, I don't believe in it.

* Steven Sestanovich, Professor at Columbia University (USA), Senior Fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations, in 1997-2001 - US Ambassador-at-Large in the post-Soviet space. The published text is based on an informal conversation between Stephen Sestanovich and an NT correspondent.

** Paraphrase of Donald Trump's "Make America great again" campaign slogan.