Blog No. 249. Donald Trump: Russophile in Chief

President Trump’s appalling assault on the integrity of the Justice Department has now been followed by an assault on the Intelligence Community. The latter assault is equally appalling and arguably more dangerous by reason of its direct implications for national security in both the short and long term. Trump has dismissed the Acting Director of National Intelligence, the widely respected Admiral Joseph McGuire, and replaced him with Richard Grenell, a figure with no experience in intelligence and whose only known qualification for the position is his unblinking loyalty to Trump. As Colum Lynch and Robbie Gramer wrote in Foreign Policy:

Richard Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to Germany, has earned President Donald Trump’s favor through fierce partisanship, scolding the German government for its positions on everything from Iran to trade, denouncing Democratic rivals on Fox News, and trolling the press on Twitter.

Now his elevation by Trump to serve as the frontman for the world’s most powerful intelligence network is sending tremors through U.S. diplomatic and intelligence communities, which fear he will spin the facts to suit the president’s political needs. 

In the Washington Post, John Negroponte (the first DNI) and Edward Wittenstein wrote:

Unvarnished, nonpartisan intelligence is essential to making sound national-security decisions. Even the appearance of politicization undermines public trust in the dedicated men and women who serve in the intelligence community, often at great personal risk. Any effort to silence analysts or punish perceived critics damages the DNI’s credibility as principal intelligence adviser to the president, Cabinet secretaries, senior military commanders and Congress.

Like so many Trump appointees filling key positions, Grenell will serve in an “Acting” capacity, so it might seem that the damage he can do is limited. Even in a short time, however, Grenell has dismissed McGuire’s top Deputy, Andrew P. Hallman, an experienced intelligence professional, and hired Kashyap Patela. Patela was a key aide to Representative Devin Nunes, former Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who worked assiduously to discredit the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Later, serving on the staff of the National Security Council, Patel reportedly became an unofficial back channel to Trump for information on Ukraine. Patel’s current appointment is particularly disturbing in light of reports that he will have a mandate to “clean house.”

The basis for Trump’s distrust of the Intelligence Community appears to be his belief that they were at the center of a “Deep State” that sought to prevent his election and, once he was elected, to overturn the result. Well before the firing of McGuire, Trump and Attorney General Barr had rattled the Intelligence Community by the appointment of U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigate the origins of the inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election and questioning–second guessing–the conclusion of intelligence analysts that Russia had sought to aid Trump’s election. At a minimum, Trump apparently holds the Intelligence Community responsible for the belief held by some today that his “historic” electoral victory in 2016 was enabled by Russian interference on his behalf. As a result, Trump is offended not only by discussion of Russian interference in 2016, but by warnings of Russian interference with the 2020 election.

Trump’s impact on the Intelligence Community should not be underestimated. In an op-ed in the New York Times, Jane Harman, a former Congresswoman who helped create the office of the Director of National Intelligence, wrote of the lasting consequences of a political purge :

A so-called house clearing could damage our intelligence abilities for at least a generation. Recruitment and retention will of course plummet, and those officers and analysts left won’t have the mentorship or the experience to ensure our assessments are based on truth.

It has now been reported that one of the candidates Trump is currently considering for permanent DNI is Congressman John Ratcliffe. This could hardly be less reassuring. When Ratcliffe was previously considered for the position, RINOcracy.com devoted an entire blog, No. 229, discussing Ratcliffe’s manifest unsuitability for the position. Nothing has changed.

Trump’s adversarial relationship with the Intelligence Community is particularly worrisome when placed in the context of the unique sympathy he has consistently shown for Vladimir Putin and Russia, beginning with his 2016 campaign and continuing throughout his administration. For example, at his notorious meeting with Putin in Helsinki, Trump made it clear that he was prepared to give more weight to Putin’s assurances than to the analysis of the Intelligence Community.

We do not know, and may never know, the true source, and the full extent of Donald Trump’s abiding affection for Vladimir Putin. One possibility is that it stems from financial help to a tottering Trump empire from Russian banks tied to Putin, acting through Deutsche Bank. Despite a number of clues pointing in that direction, there is no proof of the arrangement, and if the Supreme Court bars subpoenas to Deutsche Bank, and for Trump’s tax returns, it may remain a mystery. Alternatively, Trump’s continuing loyalty to Putin may largely reflect his appreciation for Russia’s efforts on his behalf in the 2016 election. Whatever the case, Putin has no reason to regret his investment in Trump’s election in 2016 or to refrain from making a similar investment in 2020.

Trump likes to claim that he provided Ukraine with lethal military aid withheld by the Obama Administration, and that he has imposed tough sanctions on Russia. As Max Boot pointed out in a Washington Post column, “Why the Russians still prefer Trump,” both claims are disingenuous:

It’s true, as Republicans say, that Trump sent anti-tank missiles to Ukraine — but only under conditions that make them useless against Russia.

* * * *

What about the fact that the United States has tightened sanctions on Russia since Trump came to office? True but irrelevant. It happened over Trump’s opposition. To this day, the administration is fighting efforts in Congress to strengthen sanctions, even while lifting sanctions on companies linked to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, who worked with Trump’s crooked former campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

Against those demonstrations of Trump’s faux resistance to Russia, Boot cited Trump actions in Syria and Libya which have benefited Russia. In Syria, our withdrawal has left Russia in a commanding position, sharing power with Iran, Bashar al-Assad and Turkey. In Libya, Trump gave a green light to a Russian-backed strongman, Khalifa Hifter to attack the government in Tripoli backed by the United Nations. As Boot put it, “Trump is making Russia great again in the Middle East for the first time since Egypt expelled Russian advisers in 1972.”

Boot also noted Trump’s disruptive effect on NATO, which is our most important alliance but receives continuing complaints and disparaging remarks from Trump:

A European parliamentarian told me that Trump had a huge impact on European public opinion when he raised doubts in 2018 about whether the United States would fight to defend a small nation like Montenegro. That undermines the whole basis of collective security.

Boot did not mention, but might well have done, Trump’s persistent support for having the G-7 forgive Russia for its illegal annexation of Crimea and re-admit it to membership. When Russia was expelled from the G-8 in 2014, the remaining members issued a statement calling the annexation a violation of international law that could have “grave implications for the legal order that protects the unity and sovereignty of all states.” A reversal of that decision would pave the way for abandoning the multilateral sanctions on Russia, long a top priority for Putin. Although Trump’s proposal to re-admit Russia found no support at the G-7 meeting last August, Trump was undaunted, and insisted that he would invite Putin to attend the 2020 meeting of the G-7 for which the United States will be host.

Domestically, the polarization and disunity Trump has fostered, pitting group against group and ridiculing all but the most slavishly loyal, has provided a further source of satisfaction to Putin. Discrediting and decimating the Intelligence Community is yet another reward. If Trump is not Putin’s Puppet, he gives a passably good imitation of one.

* * * *

On Wednesday, the Trump Campaign sued the New York Times for defamation on the basis of a March, 2019 opinion piece by Max Frankel, a former executive editor of the Times. In the piece, Frankel wrote:

There was no need for detailed electoral collusion between the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin’s oligarchy because they had an overarching deal: the quid of help in the campaign against Hillary Clinton for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy, with relief from the Obama administration’s burdensome economic sanctions. The Trumpites knew about the quid and held out the prospect of the quo.

The Times will probably move to dismiss the complaint and, on the basis of settled law, their motion should be granted. On the other hand, the Times might see the case as an opportunity: answer the complaint and proceed to discovery, including the deposition of Donald Trump. Litigation, of course, can be expensive, but I suspect that the Times would have little difficulty in finding skilled lawyers, including perhaps George Conway, who might be willing to handle the case on a pro bono basis.